About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
be the most egregious example to date of widespread corruption in afghanistan. american taxpayer money, hundreds of millions of dollars, ending up in the hands of the taliban. a year-long u.s. military task force discovered that the money was siphoned from a $2 billion transportation contract to provide most of the supplies to american troops. a source with knowledge of the investigation has briefed cnn about how it all went down. we are joined now from the afghan capital, kabul. just tell us briefly, how did this happen? >> reporter: this is coming from an internal report, but basically what happened was trucking companies subcontracted out to local entities here, who then in turn subcontracted out to even more local providers. what happened was it turns out that some of those local, more local firms actually had some ties to nefarious elements, including the taliban. what we see here is a bulk of the transportation costs being filtered through some of these trucking companies and part of that money is actually ending up in the hands of the very individuals who are fighting nato force
afghanistan is also winding down and that's the trillion dollars they thought they'd save but they don't list anything with the harry reid plan and not to look at entitlements, how could you possibly say we're taking a hard look and making tough decision abouts the future of our -- of the country economically and not look at entitlements when even the president of the united states has had a problem. let's look at john boehner. he says, all right, i'll raise the debt ceiling. this is what i mean by a two phased plan. just a trillion dollars and we'll have $1.2 trillion in cuts by the end of the year. the future cuts will be commissioned and sent up after they commission a bipartisan panel to decide, you know, republicans or democrats to decide which will be cut and what shouldn't. >> and apparently, it would be along the lines of the cut, cap and balance as you can see right there. here is something that speaker boehner said why he cannot support the democrats' plan. he said the administration says they need all of the increase up front so he doesn't have to deal with this until after the ele
these savings from withdrawing from iraq and afghanistan. and essential education, job creation, housing, and environmental investments where america's economic recovery and for our strong economic future would be protected from the slashing cuts proposed by the house republicans. the irony is, republican leaders previously have backed all the spending reductions called for in leader reid's plan. now, i don't agree -- and i suspect all of us don't agree with all aspects of this proposed solution. but we're not going to have 100 solutions on this floor. we're going to have one that we can vote on. i wish this would have included new revenue, especially by ending such costly and outdated tax benefits as those still enjoyed by the biggest oil companies to help us pay off our debt even more quickly. i'd like to help pay for the debt incurred by the inexcusable earlier decisions to enter two wars without paying for them. and i continue to believe the surcharge for the wealthiest would mean that they would pay more of their fair share after so many years of tax cuts that have tilted far more t
are in savings from pulling back from surge levels in afghanistan and iraq. a lot of concerns about the reid bill that they could never get 60 votes. what really will happen is a negotiation, a compromise that we will likely see tomorrow and it will be put on the shell of the boehner bill that still is a lie that -- that is tabled but still there and then somehow manage to get 60 votes on that one would think and send it back to the house in that form. >> sean: what is interesting about that when they send it back to the house i would assume because it was so difficult to get the republicans onboard the boehner bill, took the extra day, creating more savings and then, of course, adding the balanced budget provision late yesterday so the vote could take place today, i would assume that the speaker would lose a lot of votes and would be then on democrats to pass what would be the reid mcconnell bill. >> bret: and probably some more boehner factors in there. try to merge one would think the reid, mcconnell and boehner bills. there will not be the balanced budget amendment because democrats would not
billion in iraq and afghanistan to train the security forces, less than $10 billion to retrain our work force for the jobs of the future. well, mr. president, i see others have come on the floor. i'll wrap this up. deficit reduction is important. i'm not saying it isn't. but it is not the single-most important thing right now. the single-most important thing is to put people back to work. that will, as senator wyden said earlier, start to create the demand. it will spur more private investment as the federal government begins to invest in the future of this country. that's where we ought to be focusing on. once we get the wheels going again, once we get people back to work and the economy start to to -- starts to grow, that's when we start to reduce the deficit. to just focus on deficit reduction right now to the exclusion of putting people back to work reminds me of when doctors used to put leaches on people who were ill. it only made them more ill because it drained more blood out of their system. and most times proved fatal, as it did to our first president, george washington. our ur
of that is what senator reid calls the winding down of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. that will save a trillion dollars. now republicans have called that a gimmick, a savings from wars that are winding down, even though, by the way, the same savings were counted in some republican budgets. reid's plan would not reform or cut medicare, medicaid, social security. also no changes to taxes. it would raise the debt ceiling by 2.4 trillion dollars. that would be enough to fund the government through next year's election. the boehner plan is considered more short term. it would raise the debt ceiling in two different steps. the first step would happen immediately raising the ceiling by a trillion dollars and spending cuts of 1.2 trillion over ten years. and get us to next year, right some we need a second vote to raise the debt ceiling again by another $1.6 trillion. that second increase would be contingent on more cuts. another $1.8 trillion in spending cuts and have to be agreed to by a bipartisan committee. >> so far, the debt stalemate has been a drag on the stock markets but not as bad as some of
include the involvement by the norwegian military in actions in afghanistan. there are norwegian soldiers there, there is an al-qaeda official from the northern part of iraq that sought sanctuary in norway and perhaps even more disturbing is the report that just in the past year one of the main newspapers of norway which does have offices in that central area of oslo they, too, printed as other newspapers did in europe these cartoons of the prophet mohamed of the muslim faith, and as we all know, that has been a major bone of contention. this is what we're following right now, bill. bill: all right, greg, thank you. that tangled wreckage of a car might be a precious clue in all of this, and it might be the clue or not. it's not clear what threats were leveled against the government or prime minister, but we're working through all that. it is breaking news in oslo, norway, here on america's "amers newsroom." patti ann: brian terry was gunned down with a weapon the feds were supposed to be tracking, and terry's cousin gave some emotional testimony on capitol hill. now we're gearing up for r
-in-law in afghanistan and my sister works as physical therapist with a young man who just lost his leg last year in iraq. now if a man can give his legs up for this country, why can't the wealthy give up some of the tax loopholes, spread a little bit of this around. it is unbelievable the fact -- we don't even have to raise taxes on anybody. just make them pay their taxes. a lot of republicans and small businesses pay their taxes but the super rich don't. and i don't think people understand the kind of tax loophole that is are in shelters. host: we're moving on to foster in centerville, georgia, on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: hi. how are you doing? i'm just wondering now, now we actually elected people to go to congress to balance the budget and pay the bills but do they realize instead of making an amendment, do they already have the authority to pay the bills? host: well now have you let your representative or senator know how you feel about this? caller: we certainly have. me and my girlfriend got together and we got up a sheet with all the republicans representatives. we called all the
eliminating money with the wars in be afghanistan and iraq. that's also future looking. so i'm asking you today in terms of changes to the tax code for corporations because we know there's plenty of corporations that last year ended up paying relatively little or no taxes at all. are you putting forward anything in terms of corporate tax reform that you would be willing to undo in loop loopholes today? is. >> i think we all agree tax loopholes are something we can do about, that's definitely an area we compromise on without any difficulty whatsoever. but the point is putting in a system of tax reform that is simpler, flatter, less cumbersome especially for our business owners in the cost of doing business. so this is what we're looking at. but we are definitely against any tax increases, any tax increases alone. martha: all right, so goldman sachs if they don't get $4 trillion, what happens is a plan that's short of $4 trillion in real spending cuts, they're likely to downgrade their rating on u.s. debt. what do you think about that? >> well, you know, that's unfortunately what we're face
of the money that we are going to save by not continuing operations and iraq and afghanistan for the next ten years at their current level. that that was also in the rhine and budget. as it turns out, the rise in budget receives $2.2 trillion in savings without using that accounting gimmick triet compared to the president's 2011 number, the ryan budget saves $6.2 trillion without using that accounting gimmick. with the ryan budget does -- if you look through the various charts and pages of it -- it also has various comparisons, including pretty much the obligatory comparison to what is called the current law budget that cbo scores, and in that he compared because that's what cbo does the oco cost for the overseas contingency operation cost, but he did not utilize that in order to achieve the savings in his budget. so i had made the same mistakes others had in assuming what we were told was correct. paul ryan made it clear no, that wasn't correct. when we criticized the bill that the majority leader has brought up for use in over a trillion dollars in savings from that oco account, i think we
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)